While reading arguments against same sex marriage...

[Koros]

How would you explain the color blue, to someone who is blind? For that matter, how would you explain it to someone with normal vision. You can't. But to someone with normal vision, there's nothing to explain: It's as obvious to him as it is to you. To someone who is blind there is no explanation that would even begin to give him a hint as to what “blue” is.

Just because something cannot be easily or satisfactorily explained does not mean that it isn't true, or that it isn't very important.

You have a defect in your mind, that prevents you from being able to perceive and understand the differences between men and women much less to understand the importance of these differences. Trying to explain it to you would be like trying to explain “blue” to someone who is blind.

Face it, Bob, no matter how many times people ask you to identify, explain, and prove these "deep, meaningful differences," you can't. You have lost this one, big time.

 

[AGENT J]

Face it, Bob, no matter how many times people ask you to identify, explain, and prove these "deep, meaningful differences," you can't. You have lost this one, big time.

been that way for years, original false claim is made, then when ask to support said false claim ZERO is provided. Just posts full of deflections and personal insults

Then facts, links, reality are presented by others to prove original claim is false and its ignored.

But I agree id like to know this huge important difference that is claimed to factually exist that laws should be made and rights should be taken away to treat others as lessers. I very much want to know.

 

[Zinthaniel]

Face it, Bob, no matter how many times people ask you to identify, explain, and prove these "deep, meaningful differences," you can't. You have lost this one, big time.

I can imagine him jumping up and down thinking he found the perfect fallacy to protect his bigoted arguments from refutation. "I'll just compare homosexuals to blind people! Eureka!" lol

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Face it, Bob, no matter how many times people ask you to identify, explain, and prove these "deep, meaningful differences," you can't. You have lost this one, big time.

I will admit that I cannot satisfactorily explain it. But that does not diminish the truth of it, nor the obviousness of it to those who is not impaired in such a manner as to be unable to see it.

Nor does it diminish the destructive folly of trying to set public policy and social structure in a manner which denies it.

 

[clownboy]

Most have overturned those laws on adultery and they are not enforced. The state does attempt to punish adulterers thru divorce, which I already commented on. However standards for divorces, such as 'no-fault', and no longer automatically according alimony (higher scrutiny) have mostly made divorce easier, not harder.

Perhaps that was a mistake. But if it was, the solution certainly isn't to allow even more people into the dirty pool.

 

[CLAX1911]

How would you explain the color blue, to someone who is blind? For that matter, how would you explain it to someone with normal vision. You can't. But to someone with normal vision, there's nothing to explain: It's as obvious to him as it is to you. To someone who is blind there is no explanation that would even begin to give him a hint as to what “blue” is.

You said these differences were deep and meaningful, not superficial. You used a superficial comparison. And I don't really think you are in a position to tell anybody they are blind.

Just because something cannot be easily or satisfactorily explained does not mean that it isn't true, or that it isn't very important.

However, based on your lack of experience and general attitude toward homosexual people, I would say that you aren't the proper person to declare things to be true or untrue in this discussion. You are overly emotionally invested into this.

You have a defect in your mind, that prevents you from being able to perceive and understand the differences between men and women much less to understand the importance of these differences. Trying to explain it to you would be like trying to explain “blue” to someone who is blind.

So everybody that disagrees with the almighty bob blalock is mentally defective?

Likely story.

 

[CLAX1911]

I will admit that I cannot satisfactorily explain it. But that does not diminish the truth of it, nor the obviousness of it to those who is not impaired in such a manner as to be unable to see it.

All do respect, coming from the person that routinely calls homosexuals "sick perverts" you cannot attest to the truth ofwhat you are sayingbecause you are clearly way to biased to be trusted. Failure to explain means dishonesty in your case.

If you don't want to be discredited don't expose your prejudice so boldly.

Basically what I am saying is that the truth of what you are saying is highly dubious due to the simple fact that you have allowed your bias to cloud your judgement.

Nor does it diminish the destructive folly of trying to set public policy and social structure in a manner which denies it.

This magical "it", that you, an obviously biased man, crudely interpreted with nothing more than your perception and anecdotal nonsense?

Sorry your case is falling apart at the seams.

 

[CLAX1911]

Face it, Bob, no matter how many times people ask you to identify, explain, and prove these "deep, meaningful differences," you can't. You have lost this one, big time.

Huh, must not be that deep and meaningful. If it was meaningful to me, I sure as hell could explain why.

 

[CLAX1911]

I will admit that I cannot satisfactorily explain it. But that does not diminish the truth of it, nor the obviousness of it to those who is not impaired in such a manner as to be unable to see it.

Nor does it diminish the destructive folly of trying to set public policy and social structure in a manner which denies it.

The fact that you can't explain how it is meaningful strips away it's meaning. If it had meaning you would know right now you are assuming. And your defensive posturing, I.e. "it has a deep meaning, I just don't know what it is" means you are only guessing.

I have dated both women and men. I know from experience that the differences between men and women aren't as great as you are making them. Everybody is different based on being individuals. They have different needs and dreams. Honestly I haven't seen a big or real division on the lines of sex.

Your "truth" is your perception.

 

[Koros]

I will admit that I cannot satisfactorily explain it. But that does not diminish the truth of it, nor the obviousness of it to those who is not impaired in such a manner as to be unable to see it.

Nor does it diminish the destructive folly of trying to set public policy and social structure in a manner which denies it.

But, since you cannot prove it, it DOES make your entire point little more than your own imagination. If these things existed, and were as "deep and meaningful" as you claim, you could back it up. You can't. You lose.

 

[CLAX1911]

But, since you cannot prove it, it DOES make your entire point little more than your own imagination. If these things existed, and were as "deep and meaningful" as you claim, you could back it up. You can't. You lose.

deep, I could believe, meaningful, doesn't seem to be the truth. Meaning is easily articulated.

 

[roguenuke]

Children do not need any parent. It is technically possible for them to be raised (one supposes) by robots designed for the task. Children only need to be raised by a mother and a father in the sense that it is far better for them if they are - they need a mother and a father if they are to be raised optimally.

Children need comfort and love. They also need to be with people. They actually proved this with experiments on monkeys years ago. Robots could not provide everything a child needs, no matter how well they are programmed (not robots we have right now anyway) and the children turn out well compared to other children.

Optimal childrearing is subjective.

 

[roguenuke]

How would you explain the color blue, to someone who is blind? For that matter, how would you explain it to someone with normal vision. You can't. But to someone with normal vision, there's nothing to explain: It's as obvious to him as it is to you. To someone who is blind there is no explanation that would even begin to give him a hint as to what “blue” is.

Just because something cannot be easily or satisfactorily explained does not mean that it isn't true, or that it isn't very important.

You have a defect in your mind, that prevents you from being able to perceive and understand the differences between men and women much less to understand the importance of these differences. Trying to explain it to you would be like trying to explain “blue” to someone who is blind.

Men and women are not colors. And men and women do not have a set of specific traits that are exclusive to their particular sex.

 

[roguenuke]

I have no idea what sort of “proof” would satisfy you. It is obvious to most people that there are some important, deep, meaningful differences between men and women, and that these differences are essential to the way we form marriages and families.

It is also almost as obvious to me that an inability to see or understand these differences would be an expected side-effect of the very same destructive mental defect that leads one to seek sexual union with those of the same sex rather than with the opposite sex. It is your own defect that prevents you from seeing the obvious truth, and not my inability to satisfactorily explain it to you.

What you mean is that it is "obvious" to most people like you that there are these important "meaningful" differences, and that is only because those like you see the world through blinders and can't see past your own biased beliefs, looking for anything you can to confirm those beliefs and rejecting any information that says otherwise.

 

[Lursa]

Perhaps that was a mistake. But if it was, the solution certainly isn't to allow even more people into the dirty pool.

Is there some legal reason? The fate of their marriages isnt known anymore than the fates of straight couples are.

 

[roguenuke]

I will admit that I cannot satisfactorily explain it. But that does not diminish the truth of it, nor the obviousness of it to those who is not impaired in such a manner as to be unable to see it.

Nor does it diminish the destructive folly of trying to set public policy and social structure in a manner which denies it.

Yes it does. Not only does it diminish the truth, it makes the argument completely subjective because it shows that it is nothing but your opinion.

You set public policy around what you can prove, not what some people may believe is right or wrong, or destructive or deviant.

 

[Quag]

Yes it does. Not only does it diminish the truth, it makes the argument completely subjective because it shows that it is nothing but your opinion.

You SHOULD set public policy around what you can prove, not what some people may believe is right or wrong, or destructive or deviant.

Unfortunately I had to fix that for you

 

[roguenuke]

Unfortunately I had to fix that for you

You're right, thanks.

 

[RAMOSS]

Does the state not have a legitimate interest in preserving a stable and orderly society? Marriage and family is vital to that. Undermining and corrupting marriage and family can only possibly have the effect of ultimately undermining and corrupting society itself. I think the state absolutely has a responsibility to prevent that.

There is no evidence that SSM is 'underminiging and corrupting marriage and family'. That sounds like a very bad job of propoganda there.

If gays are so threatening to your marriage, you shouldn't sleep with them.

 

[CLAX1911]

There is no evidence that SSM is 'underminiging and corrupting marriage and family'. That sounds like a very bad job of propoganda there.

If gays are so threatening to your marriage, you shouldn't sleep with them.

If gays threaten his marriage perhaps he ought to seek marriage counciling

 

[Deuce]

If gays threaten his marriage perhaps he ought to seek marriage counciling

Trip report: my state has had same-sex marriage legal for a year now. I haven't been sodomized yet. Still waiting for my gay husband to be assigned.

 

[CLAX1911]

Trip report: my state has had same-sex marriage legal for a year now. I haven't been sodomized yet. Still waiting for my gay husband to be assigned.

Shhh don't let people know that doesn't happen.

 

[Deuce]

Shhh don't let people know that doesn't happen.

I just assumed it was a backlog of paperwork. Bureaucracy, you know.

 

[CLAX1911]

I just assumed it was a backlog of paperwork. Bureaucracy, you know.

Shh! I mean it. If the government doesn't force people to divorce out of their heterosexual marriages and enter into homosexual ones, than there isn't really any reason to be against it. And all the anti crowd will lose their scare tactic.

 

[Ocean007]

Men and women are different. Fathers and mothers are different. Only a man can be a father, and only a woman can be a mother, and a child needs, and is entitled, to both.

Your entire argument is based on denying or minimizing the obvious and important differences between men and women, between mothers and fathers, and the importance that both have in the proper upbringing of a child.

The "proper upbringing of a child" phrase is completely subjective, so it could mean anything. Therefore, it is irrelevant, as far as I'M concerned anyway.

You are also making the mistake of assuming that all same-sex marriages are going to lead to some kind of parenting. That is simply not the case. Just as many straight married couples may choose NOT to have or raise children, many gay married couples can make the same no-kids-by-choice, aka childFREE, decision.